SoaringBird
Welcome!
edit
|
Dear Soaring Bird (and fellow Earlhamite),
Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting (OVYM) has replaced the Stub article with a full article they have written. The page is bannered by four areas of dispute: quality, citation, advertisement, and neutrality. However, the article has not been reviewed and no comments can be found anywhere in which any of the four is cited for this article. I believe that they relate to the original stub, but I am not able to find any way of making updates/corrections to the four disputes.
Can we arrange for a review so that the article appears without the disputes, which is causing a negative reaction among the leadership?
Lonny Burger Webmaster, OVYM
Dear Lonny Burger,
Thank you for writing. I am very new to this - have not yet done much of anything in this environment. I will try to figure out how this works, or will find another who is more experienced.
SoaringBird (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Lonny Burger,
I have removed the advertisement and POV flags from the OVYM page. I believe that they were not accurate. It may be that I have not followed correct procedures here (Wiki procedures are complicated), and thus that there will be further comment or subsequent changes. In any event, I believe that the flags were not appropriate.
I do think that the article needs some citations, especially in the section on beliefs - possibly something from Brinton or others - and some links for further reading. I will look for appropriate references if you like, though, as an editor/administrator I perhaps need to remain uninvolved in the editing (I am not clear about policies).
I also think that there are a couple of awkward repetitions in the history section, which will worry the quality people. Maybe this could be smoothed out a bit into a single timeline?
I am respectfully yours, SoaringBird (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, my name is Robin Anderson. I received the M.Div. from ESR in 2011 within the Writing as Ministry emphasis, and have been a liberal Quaker since 1959 or so. It was my great pleasure to worship with Clear Creek Monthly Meeting during my time in Richmond.
- Hi SoaringBird. I'm an experienced editor and WP:Administrator (take a look at that page) and there is a huge misunderstanding here. No organisation should write their own article (see WP:COI and anything that uses the word 'our' is obviously written from the organisations pov. You might want to also read WP:MOS just to get a flavor of our manual of style. I actually think the tags (added after the article was rewritten by the way) are appropriate, but the biggest problem is what we call copyvio, see WP:COPYVIO and the article might have to be stubbed again. You are an inexperienced editor but so was I years ago, and unless you are part of the leadership of the meeting should be able to edit the article. I'm trying to get help saving this article. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, Thank you for the references. I will study them. So, are you saying that especially those people who are experts or who have access to archives are excluded from writing articles? In any event, much is not clear to me. The article has been rated as not important and yet is of great importance to OVYM members. Who is better qualified to represent them? By the same reasoning, Quakers are not qualified to write entries on Quakerism, since we are all part of the leadership on some level. So there seem to be multiple opinions seeking control here, though I am not sure of what, without benefit of clear process. As I said, I will read more and hope to find clarity. 70.113.65.25 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
edit |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here